How many posters on MD were once apologists?

[_moksha]

Wonderful. Now, do you have a response to my question regarding the relative weight of evidence for the existence God vs invisible fairies?

Belief in a benevolent God is much more comforting than belief in invisible fairies who wish to sharpen my eyelashes. Weight of evidence does not stack up well with the will to believe. Belief wins out.

Banish those eyelash fairies to the MAD board through this weight of evidence!

[_Quasimodo]

The evidence points out that the Book of Mormon was written by a man and therefore Mormons are realying upon "arms of the flesh" as well.

Are you sure?

Regards,
MG

I am. You should be, too. There is just no reason to believe otherwise.

[_mentalgymnast]

It least buffalo has scientific evidence that proves the Book of Mormon not true. What do you have? A special feeling in your heart?

There's more than that. After all, relying solely upon emotional feelings may mislead. Back to your assertion that the Book of Mormon was definitely written by one man. And to your scientific evidence fixation.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... nt_studies

Are you 100% sure that the Book of Mormon was written by "a man"? A scientific study (peer reviewed) seems to point a different direction.

Regards,
MG

[_Quasimodo]

It least buffalo has scientific evidence that proves the Book of Mormon not true. What do you have? A special feeling in your heart?

There's more than that. After all, relying solely upon emotional feelings may mislead. Back to your assertion that the Book of Mormon was definitely written by one man. And to your scientific evidence fixation.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... nt_studies

Are you 100% sure that the Book of Mormon was written by "a man"? A scientific study (peer reviewed) seems to point a different direction.

Regards,
MG

Your link seems to only conclude that the Book of Mormon was written by more than one author. Not surprising, given the suspicion that it heavily plagiarized from various sources. It certainly does not state any evidence of a divine nature.

[_Themis]

[Hi TD,

Over the years I've come to realize that whether I'm looking at apologetics or what the Mormon critics have to say, I'm receiving the interpretations and opinions of human beings. This is what is referred to in the Book of Mormon as the "arm of flesh".

Of course you are, but you are forgetting that this thread is about apologists that no longer believe. We all can be influenced by how we want to intepret the information we are recieiving, whether it be physical or what we think is spiritual. Your problem is that former believers never wanted to change their beliefs.

So to rely solely upon human beings and their interpretations and opinions to resolve truth claims in regards to the LDS church is an exercise in futility.

Nonsense. Science is a great example of the arm of flesh using a methodolgy to look at the world around them. It has proven itself to be the most reliable method we have. The spiritual is terrrible compared to it and most other ways of looking at the world around us, and I love the spiritual. What you think to not be the arm of flesh but God can't even be relibale, so we should not ignore the other evidence when it does not fit what we want to believe. It's the former believers who I think best understand this.

[_mentalgymnast]

Your link seems to only conclude that the Book of Mormon was written by more than one author. Not surprising, given the suspicion that it heavily plagiarized from various sources. It certainly does not state any evidence of a divine nature.

Your contention was that the Book of Mormon was written by "a man". You may be wrong on that point.

The topic of this thread has wavered significantly. My point is that it may be futile to either look to the apologists or the critics as being the sole and final arbiters of truth. Especially if they are relying upon the "arm of flesh" exclusively.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Science is a great example of the arm of flesh using a methodolgy to look at the world around them. It has proven itself to be the most reliable method we have.

But at times unreliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded ... c_theories

http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debu ... -the-past/

Arm of the flesh investigation is not always dependable and sacrosanct.

Regards,
MG

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I tried my hand at Mopologia on the LDSTalk board way back when... And I was terrible at it. The more I tried to engage in apologia the more absurd my position seemed, and I quickly became an apostate.

I'm also terrible at this, too. ;)

V/R
Dr. Cameron

[_Themis]

Nothing that you have either heard of before, seen, or possibly experienced.

How do you know this? You brought up interpretation. Many may be having the same experiences but have vastly different interpretations of them.

The difference, I suppose, is that I've held on to God belief while you have scrapped it so that the "arm of flesh" evidence which you have compiled fits into your view of reality.

Or maybe his view of reality has been changed to fit the evidence, unlike yourself who may be trying to interpret the evidence to fit your beliefs. Remember that most of us and probably him as well did not want to change our beliefs.

I've been where you're at.

In what way?

Evidence of God? The Book of Mormon is a good place to start if you can stay within the covers and stay with the text itself. There is something inexplicably unique about that book. It is indeed the keystone to finding out whether the church is true, God lives, Jesus is the Christ, etc.

How so?

In todays world with all of the conflicting evidences that can move a person one way or the other, the Book of Mormon remains the bedrock "evidence" and Exhibit A that the LDS church is something special and unique in the world and has an important mission to carry out.

What conflicting evidences? Also how is the Book of Mormon bedrock evidence? Buffalo's point is valid and still unanswered on how your beliefs or claims are based on any evidwence compared to other claims like fairies.

[_Quasimodo]

Your link seems to only conclude that the Book of Mormon was written by more than one author. Not surprising, given the suspicion that it heavily plagiarized from various sources. It certainly does not state any evidence of a divine nature.

Your contention was that the Book of Mormon was written by "a man". You may be wrong on that point.

The topic of this thread has wavered significantly. My point is that it may be futile to either look to the apologists or the critics as being the sole and final arbiters of truth. Especially if they are relying upon the "arm of flesh" exclusively.

Regards,
MG

Actually, I've never contended that the Book of Mormon was written by a single man. I can understand how you may have thought that from the quote I was responding to.

Knowing the truth is difficult. Knowing an untruth is a little easier. A postulation must give some evidence of truth to be considered. Without that, it must be considered untrue until some evidence comes forth.

We are all free to believe whatever we wish, but we can't honestly claim our beliefs to be true without some reasonable evidence.

The world of science does not need to prove that the Book of Mormon is false. Believers must prove it to be true. That hasn't happened, yet.